Scott v. DeMenna

2 Citing cases

  1. Little v. City of Seattle

    863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 946 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending the resolution of one issue if discovery would not affect a decision on that issue

    This court can, however, decide the issue. See Scott v. DeMenna, 840 F.2d 8, 9 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 138, 102 L.Ed.2d 110 (1988) (deciding the discretion issue on appeal even though it was not addressed below). In this case, Paul's duties fit within those discretionary functions entitled to absolute immunity. The duty to investigate possible fraud and other criminal behavior is one federal activity which must not be inhibited by a possibility of civil liability.

  2. Robinson v. Egnor

    699 F. Supp. 1207 (E.D. Va. 1988)   Cited 19 times
    In Robinson, the defendant, a United States Marshal, communicated with the Marshals Service Headquarters in Virginia approximately fifty times in about a year.

    In addition, conversations which are an integral part of an official's supervisory responsibilities are necessarily discretionary. See Araujo v. Welch, 742 F.2d 802, 805 (3rd Cir. 1984) (participating in a discussion of work-related matters at an Army-sponsored Equal Employment Opportunity conference is within scope of defendant's discretionary powers, when defendant is responsible for supervision of local Equal Employment Opportunity office); see also Scott v. DeMenna, 840 F.2d 8 (11th Cir. 1988) (in defamation suit by market news reporter, reporting market news held to be inherently discretionary activity). Under Westfall, this Court would also consider whether absolute immunity, in the context at bar, would serve the purposes underlying the doctrine.